the golden gate library has acknowledged this as a historic resource under ceqa guidelines, and ceqa guidelines state that if there is such finding, that they cannot be bypassed. given that ceqa exemption is intended to be used when the possibility of impacts to historic resources are minimal, any substantial evidence to the contrary makes the use of the ceqa exemption invalid. substantial evidence is defined as facts or reasonable assumption based on facts or an expert opinion based on facts. in the record before you, there's substantial information from five internationally and locally renowned experts showing that this project may have an impact on the integrity of this local resource, and under that, the project cannot be exempted under ceqa. the national register recognizes properties that possess high artistic value. these are not a list of physical features but come from the way that those features are put together and how they shape people's experiences of a place. among the standard features of carnegie libraries, several of them specifically address the provision and purpos

outlined in ceqa section 15. it will prohibit from using exemptions. these exceptions include potential impacts. there are five main issues raised by the appellant undertaken by the planning department as shown in the slide. note this does not reflect the information submitted by the appellant earlier today. which we were unable to give due consideration. as discussed, the appellant provided additional information on the roof structure. as outlined in our response letter, upon reviewing the information provided by the appellant, the department found that ceqa venue recovery fund -e resource. i'll outline the reasons why the department stands by the original findings under the class 1 categorical exemption. this is because the project maintains character defining feature business the department these are features that were consistent with the national registered bulletin 15. the project is consistent with the secretary of interior standards and the national park service interpreting the standards bulletin number 3

outlined in ceqa section 15. it will prohibit from using exemptions. these exceptions include potential impacts. there are five main issues raised by the appellant undertaken by the planning department as shown in the slide. note this does not reflect the information submitted by the appellant earlier today. which we were unable to give due consideration. as discussed, the appellant provided additional information on the roof structure. as outlined in our response letter, upon reviewing the information provided by the appellant, the department found that ceqa venue recovery fund -e resource. i'll outline the reasons why the department stands by the original findings under the class 1 categorical exemption. this is because the project maintains character defining feature business the department these are features that were consistent with the national registered bulletin 15. the project is consistent with the secretary of interior standards and the national park service interpreting the standards bulletin number 3

i assume that's probably a ceqa thing. it just seems like eliminating that entirely would not be a huge change in the status quo. >> fully removing the requirement is probably not feasible. we are able to modify it, and i think the current code currently outlines the process for administrative review toest to just ensure that property owners are taking the review of their landmarks according to, you know, the rules that the city has basically developed. so we still will kind of conduct the review of those proposals and sign off on them. we will just avoid the notice process in terms of processing the applications now. >> maybe i didn't understand. i was talking about the appeal. not that we should eliminate them, but the appeal -- if i'm understanding properly, there's still a ten-day appeal period for an issued acoa or mpcj. this to rich? >> yeah, that's correct. so with any appeal process, there's still a ten-day appeal period. so because it's a discretionary action from the department, basically, it's something that is

this is a critical issue for ceqa. i think that public health lies at the heart of environmental concerns, and with this information, we just need some time to get geotechs in there to find out what these excavations, what these construction plans may do. and it may be minimal, but it may be very drastic, and it may imperil the health and safety of the residents of that building, and it may imperil the historic pacific bay inn. we're just asking to push out any approval of the project or the ceqa addendum to allow us to get geotech engineers to look at this. and until you do this -- >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is kathy vaughn, and i live in the -- i'm a resident of the tenderloin, and i'm also on the ccsro land use committee. the developer did not amicably engage community engagement around the design. if they did, they would have heard concerns about overcrowding on the need for family units. on o'farrell, there is already a lot of group housing. we are concerned t

san francisco and other california cities have recently granted certain ceqa exemptions to projects on the list and annually updated registry of waste sites in the state. in san francisco, contaminated gas stations, vehicle repair shops and parking lots and they have become prize development commodities in recent years and according to a chronicle article last year the planning department has granted or considered categorical and commonsense ceqa exemptions for a dozen projects and he over the past five years. state law mandates transparency and requires local governments to notify the public about potential hazards at a site before development begins. it allows the public to demand health protection and additional levels of clean up and requires formal considerations of those the dangers of carrying out development for project are sights can be severe and without mitigation efforts designed to clean up or eliminate how the substances these projects can pose several health risk to the public and future occupants by exposing them to dangerous substances and in 1991, assembly members sam

the incorrect document was linked on this item to ceqa. we request to pull this item so the appropriate documents can be linked we will reschedule for the next meeting. >> madam secretary, is there any further business before this commission? >> that completes the business for today. >> then, colleagues, i will see you later. thank you. [♪♪♪] >> i just wanted to say a few words. one is to the parents and to all of the kids. thank you for supporting this program and for trusting us to create a soccer program in the bayview. >> soccer is the world's game, and everybody plays, but in the united states, this is a sport that struggles with access for certain communities. >> i coached basketball in a coached football for years, it is the same thing. it is about motivating kids and keeping them together, and giving them new opportunities. >> when the kids came out, they had no idea really what the game was. only one or two of them had played soccer before. we gave the kids very simple lessons every day and made sure that they had fun while they w

this is a critical issue for ceqa. i think that public health lies at the heart of environmental concerns, and with this information, we just need some time to get geotechs in there to find out what these excavations, what these construction plans may do. and it may be minimal, but it may be very drastic, and it may imperil the health and safety of the residents of that building, and it may imperil the historic pacific bay inn. we're just asking to push out any approval of the project or the ceqa addendum to allow us to get geotech engineers to look at this. and until you do this -- >> clerk: thank you. that is your time. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is kathy vaughn, and i live in the -- i'm a resident of the tenderloin, and i'm also on the ccsro land use committee. the developer did not amicably engage community engagement around the design. if they did, they would have heard concerns about overcrowding on the need for family units. on o'farrell, there is already a lot of group housing. we are concerned t

san francisco and other california cities have recently granted certain ceqa exemptions to projects on the list and annually updated registry of waste sites in the state. in san francisco, contaminated gas stations, vehicle repair shops and parking lots and they have become prize development commodities in recent years and according to a chronicle article last year the planning department has granted or considered categorical and commonsense ceqa exemptions for a dozen projects and he over the past five years. state law mandates transparency and requires local governments to notify the public about potential hazards at a site before development begins. it allows the public to demand health protection and additional levels of clean up and requires formal considerations of those the dangers of carrying out development for project are sights can be severe and without mitigation efforts designed to clean up or eliminate how the substances these projects can pose several health risk to the public and future occupants by exposing them to dangerous substances and in 1991, assembly members sam

i just found the latest ceqa document which was really a needle in a haystack. it's only available at one location at planning, not easy to find at all. and i'm not sure if the appeal deadline has passed. in my view it may be appropriate as a class 1 categorical exemption under ceqa but not an emergency statutory exemption. if i read slide five correctly, this may save a minute or two, that's the way that i read it. but with confusing hours, is it really worth it? that's the question. and as liz said parking supply in the area is constrained, not everyone in town and in particular in that area of town, has off-street parking available. so i'm not speaking in favor or opposed to the item. but those are my comments. thanks. >> chair borden: thank you, and next speaker. >> you have 17 questions remaining. >> chair borden: next speaker. >> caller: (indiscernible) i'm in support. i wish we could do more. i would like to see a measure of consistency. the number one line is very (indiscernible) it's one of the lines that i have ridden most frequently. and ridden the lo

i assume that's probably a ceqa thing. it just seems like eliminating that entirely would not be a huge change in the status quo. >> fully removing the requirement is probably not feasible. we are able to modify it, and i think the current code currently outlines the process for administrative review toest to just ensure that property owners are taking the review of their landmarks according to, you know, the rules that the city has basically developed. so we still will kind of conduct the review of those proposals and sign off on them. we will just avoid the notice process in terms of processing the applications now. >> maybe i didn't understand. i was talking about the appeal. not that we should eliminate them, but the appeal -- if i'm understanding properly, there's still a ten-day appeal period for an issued acoa or mpcj. this to rich? >> yeah, that's correct. so with any appeal process, there's still a ten-day appeal period. so because it's a discretionary action from the department, basically, it's something that is

on that 2019 categorical exemption which then became void after the board overturned that initial ceqa appeal. the appellant argued that the project would adversely impact the natural light in the reading room, thus violating ceqa, and also that the board should apply the fair argument test, not the substantial evidence test when reviewing the ceqa determination regarding the light level as a character defining feature of the library. the department clarified that it is allowed to have a categorical exception such as the case here, and the department's research was based on substantial evidence and the record that daylight levels inside the library's reading room is not a character defining feature of the library. also of note, the indoor light level is not identified as a character defining feature in any of the other carnegie libraries in san francisco. during the public hearing, members of the public expressed concern that the project would affect historic preservation of the library and that it would adversely affect the light levels of the library. supervisor peskin posed the ques

we did do a shadow study that was examining any potential significant shadow impact under ceqa or any shadow impact under planning code section 295 which governs shadow on properties under the jurisdiction of rec and park commission. the shadow study found that the project would not cause any significant shadow impact under ceqa, but because the middle school playground is not under the jurisdiction of the rec and park commission and also not enrolled in a shared schoolyard program, that was not specifically analyzed through the shadow study. i do believe there was a shadow sand created but there was a determination that there was no significant shadow impact of the project. >> commissioner: thank you for answering the question. thank you. >> president: commissioner tanner, go ahead. >> commissioner: great to see this project coming in. used to go by that gas station a lot and glad to see bike lanes and fewer cars in and out of the bike lanes. that will hopefully soon not be a gas station there. i wanted to encourage the project sponsor to think about enough bike sparking spaces for e

the incorrect document was linked on this item to ceqa. we request to pull this item so the appropriate documents can be linked we will reschedule for the next meeting. >> madam secretary, is there any further business before this commission? >> that completes the business for today. >> then, colleagues, i will see you later. thank you.

the incorrect document was linked on this item to ceqa. we request to pull this item so the appropriate documents can be linked we will reschedule for the next meeting. >> madam secretary, is there any further business before this commission? >> that completes the business for today. >> then, colleagues, i will see you later. thank you. >> in august 2019 construction began on the new facility at 1995 evans avenue in bayview. it will house motorcycle police and department of forensic services division. both sfpd groups are in two buildings that need to be vacated. they will join the new $183 million facility in late 2021. >> elements of the cfi and the traffic company are housed at the hall of justice, which has been determined to be seismically unfit. it is slated for demolition. in addition to that the forensic services crime lab is also slated for demolition. it was time and made sense to put these elements currently spread in different parts of the city together into a new facility. >> the project is located in the bayview area, in the

on that 2019 categorical exemption which then became void after the board overturned that initial ceqa appeal. the appellant argued that the project would adversely impact the natural light in the reading room, thus violating ceqa, and also that the board should apply the fair argument test, not the substantial evidence test when reviewing the ceqa determination regarding the light level as a character defining feature of the library. the department clarified that it is allowed to have a categorical exception such as the case here, and the department's research was based on substantial evidence and the record that daylight levels inside the library's reading room is not a character defining feature of the library. also of note, the indoor light level is not identified as a character defining feature in any of the other carnegie libraries in san francisco. during the public hearing, members of the public expressed concern that the project would affect historic preservation of the library and that it would adversely affect the light levels of the library. supervisor peskin posed the ques

finally, i have no ceqa comments on the project at this time and thank you all very much. >> no other comments. >> commissioner: a mention to aprevious. >> second. >> commissioner: moved and seconded. roll call, please. [roll call] . you have five ayes. >> commissioner: next item. >> clerk: item 10. 10. authorize the general manager to extend by nine months through march 31, 2022, the following programs currently scheduled to end june 30, 2021: (1) the temporary emergency customer assistance program for covid-19 relief for single-family residential customers providing a discount of 15% on water, 35% on sewer, and 30% on hetch hetchy power bills, (2) the application deadline for the small business and nonprofit customer assistance program for covid-19 relief providing a 20% discount on water and sewer bills with bill discounts under this program continuing for six months from the date of application approval, and (3) the temporary suspension of rules governing water/power shutoffs, liens, and fines. this will be presented. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm aaron franks. i'm the rat

i assume that's probably a ceqa thing.entirely would not be a huge change in the status quo. >> fully removing the requirement is probably not feasible. we are able to modify it, and i think the current code currently outlines the process for administrative review toest to just ensure that property owners are taking the review of their landmarks according to, you know, the rules that the city has basically developed. so we still will kind of conduct the review of those proposals and sign off on them. we will just avoid the notice process in terms of processing the applications now. >> maybe i didn't understand. i was talking about the appeal. not that we should eliminate them, but the appeal -- if i'm understanding properly, there's still a ten-day appeal period for an issued acoa or mpcj. this to rich? >> yeah, that's correct. so with any appeal process, there's still a ten-day appeal period. so because it's a discretionary action from the department, basically, it's something that is appealable unless, you know, institut

records must be kept for ceqa purposes, documents, e-mails and text. i would cite smith versus san jose and golden door properties versus superior court. ceqa attorneys can weigh in on that. maybe other documents are missing as well. i would need more time to review. it's not urgent. i have not reviewed regarding other technology record retention periods. i agree with the comments made by peter strauss regarding retention and use of historical records. to conclude, i would ask you to continue that to a future meeting. thank you for hearing me. thank you very much. >> chair borden: with that, we'll close public comment. on that item, so, so i see director lai has a question. >> director lai: thank you, chair. could staff just quickly address item 10.10 on essentially references in the document for staff members -- like the contact staff members that are no longer with the agency. i assume that might be okay because we have other directories and more current information all over our website to provide that information to the public, right? >> yes, direct

i assume that's probably a ceqa thing. it just seems like eliminating that entirely would not be a huge change in the status quo. >> fully removing the requirement is probably not feasible. we are able to modify it, and i think the current code currently outlines the process for administrative review toest to just ensure that property owners are taking the review of their landmarks according to, you know, the rules that the city has basically developed. so we still will kind of conduct the review of those proposals and sign off on them. we will just avoid the notice process in terms of processing the applications now. >> maybe i didn't understand. i was talking about the appeal. not that we should eliminate them, but the appeal -- if i'm understanding properly, there's still a ten-day appeal period for an issued acoa or mpcj. this to rich? >> yeah, that's correct. so with any appeal process, there's still a ten-day appeal period. so because it's a discretionary action from the department, basically, it's something that is

the first is to strike the land whereas clause as it relates to the ceqa findings. we've been vised by the city attorney that that particular whereas clause that that's not required within this resolution. and then, the second amendment to the resolution is in the resolved clause where the sfmta would like to change our request from a two-year funding request to one-year funding request where the first year would be 11.2 million. in the second year, would be 11.6, but would require the approval of the director of transportation, and these are amounts recommended by the budget analyst. i think in the interest of time, we can go to the budget analyst's report, and i'm happy to answer any questions after that. >> chair haney: sure. miss campbell? >> yes, chair haney, members of the committee. as mr. lee noted, this is a -- legislation approval an existing agreement between m.t.a. and autoreturn. i believe it was discussed by the department last week. the legislation before you would increase the term of two years for a total not to exceed amount of 88.6 million. we sho

the legislation that was just introduced last week that had additions to it, maybe having to do with ceqa, environmental quality act, we had to make sure that the legislation was addressing certain issues, but in there, there was an addition for the recurring renewal fees. when it originally introduced on march 16th, the legislation had a blank place holder for renewal fees. so that's where, commissioner had asked about the methodology we looked at. we looked at sidewalk tables and chairs, square footage calculation, and that was what drove the numbers we see today. you know, publicly, the -- all of the fees, first-time, as well as renewal fee, haven't been circulated -- the first time they were circulated was when legislation -- substitute legislation was introduced. i believe it was last week in the mayor's office on the 6th. so they are fairly new. and this is the dialogue, now there is numbers, this is where the public discourse and dialogue begins. we're getting the reactions that the small business commission is having tonight to the numbers is really important for us to know. and a

i assume that's probably a ceqa thing. just seems like eliminating that entirely would not be a huge change in the status quo. >> fully removing the requirement is probably not feasible. we are able to modify it, and i think the current code currently outlines the process for administrative review toest to just ensure that property owners are taking the review of their landmarks according to, you know, the rules that the city has basically developed. so we still will kind of conduct the review of those proposals and sign off on them. we will just avoid the notice process in terms of processing the applications now. >> maybe i didn't understand. i was talking about the appeal. not that we should eliminate them, but the appeal -- if i'm understanding properly, there's still a ten-day appeal period for an issued acoa or mpcj. this to rich? >> yeah, that's correct. so with any appeal process, there's still a ten-day appeal period. so because it's a discretionary action from the department, basically, it's something that is app

the legislation that was just introduced last week that had additions to it, maybe having to do with ceqavironmental quality act, we had to make sure that the legislation was addressing certain issues, but in there, there was an addition for the recurring renewal fees. when it originally introduced on march 16th, the legislation had a blank place holder for renewal fees. so that's where, commissioner had asked about the methodology we looked at. we looked at sidewalk tables and chairs, square footage calculation, and that was what drove the numbers we see today. you know, publicly, the -- all of the fees, first-time, as well as renewal fee, haven't been circulated -- the first time they were circulated was when legislation -- substitute legislation was introduced. i believe it was last week in the mayor's office on the 6th. so they are fairly new. and this is the dialogue, now there is numbers, this is where the public discourse and dialogue begins. we're getting the reactions that the small business commission is having tonight to the numbers is really important for us to know. and as we